RAM SARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Trivedi, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Government rejecting the petitioner's premature release on the basis of Form-a

(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner has already served out a sen tence necessary for considering him for premature release. The petitioner's Form-A was submitted on which the Jail Authorities submitted a favourable report saying that the petitioner's conduct inside the Jail was found good. The concerned District Magistrate also pointed out that the petitioner would lead a peaceful life, if he is released on licence. He also stated that the guardian indicated by the petitioner is a responsible person. The Probation Officer also recommended the premature release of the petitioner by giving a detailed report. The Superinten dent of Police concerned in his report ad mits that the petitioner had not com mitted any offence when he was released on parole. IT is also not disputed that hedid not disturb Law and Order and public peace but in reply to Column No. 3, it has been pointed out that as the petitioner has committed a heinous crime, therefore, he could again commit any offence, if he is released. In Column No. 3 itself the fact is mentioned that if, the reply is in negative, then specific reasons be given for the same. Admittedly, no specific reason was given by the concerned Superintendent of Police for giving this reply that the petitioner could commit an offence if, he is released on licence. He did not recommend the premature release of the petitioner without giving any reasons. All these reports were placed before the Probation Board but from the perusal of the report of the Probation Board it is evident that the Probation Board has considered the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police alone and thereafter, the Board has not recommended the premature release of the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Government by the impugned order dated 16-10-96 rejected the Form-A of the petitioner on the ground that the dispute has not yet ceased and as there is likelihood of repetition of the crime, therefore, the petitioner's prayer for premature release is rejected.

(3.) WITH these observations as men tioned above, the present writ petition is hereby, allowed. Petition allowed. .